Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Topic: America never invaded Afghanistan Posted: 13-Sep-2011 at 19:47 |
Despite his outrage over the 9/11 attacks, Bush is persuaded not to waste the lives of American soldiers in a costly occupation. Instead, the air force bombs Kabul to rubble and drones are used to target Al Qaeda bases. How different would the world be today (especially US-Muslim relations) if the leaders showed more restraint during the War on Terror?
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|
Baal Melqart
General
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Sep-2011 at 18:37 |
How is bombing kabul to rubble showing restraint? But I guess even if they didn't go ona full-scale invasion, things wouldn't have changed much. Iraq would still be enough of a blow to US-muslim relations. 1.6 million deaths is a lot more than the toll of Afghanistan.
|
Timidi mater non flet
|
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Sep-2011 at 19:18 |
It was comparatively restrained for America, compared with invading and occupying countries seen as a threat. Fewer US soldiers and Afghan civilians are killed in a show of force intended to demonstrate to the Taliban America had the potential to invade, should it choose to do so
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|
Starsucks
Janissary
Joined: 10-Oct-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Oct-2011 at 14:46 |
Iran would probably have more problems to deal with in its Eastern provinces, since the Taliban may have been able to stay in power.
|
|
Centrix Vigilis
Emperor
Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Oct-2011 at 16:22 |
Restraint on terrorism? Why.
|
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
|
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Oct-2011 at 21:40 |
Because they knew it would be a long and difficult war in a country recognised as the graveyard of invading armies
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|
claymore
Janissary
Joined: 12-Oct-2011
Location: scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Oct-2011 at 10:46 |
i agree with centrix vigilis to show to much restraint on terrorism would be folly,terrorists would see that as a weakness
|
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Oct-2011 at 19:30 |
In the long run it might have improved US-Arab relations as Muslims, horrified by the unprovoked attacks, made efforts to distance themselves from the extremists. Afghanistan would be isolated and contained like Gadaffi's Libya after the Lockerbie bombings, or Iraq after the Gulf War, with economic sanctions and occasional bombing raids on Omar's property in retaliation. Eventually the people, sick of Taliban oppression, would rise up and overthrow the tyrant, as happened during the recent Arab Spring. America could supply the militias and use drones to help mop up the surviving Taliban before they can retreat into the mountains
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|
claymore
Janissary
Joined: 12-Oct-2011
Location: scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Oct-2011 at 15:18 |
risky buisness that giving arms away america gave to the taliban look how it turned out
|
|
unclefred
Consul
Suspended, Historum joker
Joined: 09-Dec-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 337
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Oct-2011 at 17:07 |
I'd say without the events of the past several years, there would be no 'Arab spring'. I'm not sure why delivering Egypt into military rule should be considered a 'spring' either. You can be sure we're not finished over there. Taking out one murderous strongman in Iraq was just a start. There is more to come.
|
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 19:52 |
Originally posted by claymore
risky buisness that giving arms away america gave to the taliban look how it turned out |
If they're busy killing each other they won't have the time to plan attacks on America. Should America's allies betray them, they could simply supply other warlords to prolong the anarchy
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|
Baal Melqart
General
Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 21:45 |
Originally posted by Nick1986
In the long run it might have improved US-Arab relations as Muslims, horrified by the unprovoked attacks, made efforts to distance themselves from the extremists. Afghanistan would be isolated and contained like Gadaffi's Libya after the Lockerbie bombings, or Iraq after the Gulf War, with economic sanctions and occasional bombing raids on Omar's property in retaliation. Eventually the people, sick of Taliban oppression, would rise up and overthrow the tyrant, as happened during the recent Arab Spring. America could supply the militias and use drones to help mop up the surviving Taliban before they can retreat into the mountains |
Yes, but I think the US wants to control and extract the huge natural resources found in Afghanistan. It seems Afghanistan sits on mines of valuable minerals such as gold, iron, copper, coal and various precious stones. http://www.aolnews.com/2010/06/14/report-afghanistan-sitting-on-goldmine-literally/And of course, how can one forget another valuable material, opium. Though the US has been trying to convince farmers to grow other crops, mainly to cut the Taliban's main income, opium is valuable for its use in the pharmaceutical industry. Many anti-depressants and pain-killers are derived from opium. I don't see how a blockade would have enabled the US to tap into all of these resources.
|
Timidi mater non flet
|
|
Michael Mckean
Housecarl
Joined: 10-Feb-2012
Location: Troon, Scotia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 35
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Feb-2012 at 18:24 |
I'm not sure on this but didnt the Taliban agree to hand over Bin Laden but then the coalition invaded? I would run a web search but not really in the mood right now.Anyway, the USA would definitely not be regarded as an agressor. Drone strikes you say? I dont think there was a wide range of available drones back at the turn of the millenium, stats show that drone strikes only became more abundant in the years 2004/5. Initially aerial attacks and strikes would prove quite destructive on the unsuspecting Taliban, but as time progresses they purposely blend in with the civillian population. Because American personnel want to reduce civillian losses.However, as the Taliban are weakened by U.S bombardment, the Afghan Northern Alliance and anti-Taliban militias attempt to overthrow the fantatical fundamentalists. With much success, as a result a pro-U.S government is installed but an insurgency breaks out due to the remaining number of dispersed Taliban fighters across the nation. That I believe, is how things could work out. Obviously I dont have time to put in much detail or other alternatives to the circumstances of the thread.Also, despite being antagonised the the hellfire raining on them from the skies, the Taliban may continue to harass Irans Eastern border.
|
The sun never sets on the British Empire
|
|